Pharmacology Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The patent extension seems to be an issue.

This isn't a WP:RS, but it has some useful links. http://patentcircle.blogspot.com/2006/11/fulvestrant-expiring-in-december-2007.html --Nbauman (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing the statement here because as of now it looks like a mostly political statement and lacks essential medical information like scope and applicability. In particular it says "found no evidence Faslodex was significantly better than existing treatments, so its widespread use would not be a good use of resources" - in my opinion the scope and circumstances of the statement such as (primary/metastatic/treatment refractory) breast cancer and compared treatments must be made clear. A link to a NICE page listing numerous PDF documents is not an acceptable source unless the reader knows which of the PDF documents is supposed to prove which point. What level of evidence is there? What was compared? The other news sources are not good enough for me. It is not acceptable leave the task of finding sources and filling in essential missing information to the reader.

Also as far as I know it is not generally the scope of wikipedia to provide detailed cost comparisons of treatments. The medical aspects - if there is sufficient evidence - should be elaborated to much greater detail while the cost considerations kept to a minimum.

Furthermore I am wary about having here a political statement from NICE elaborated to such lengths but not one from FDA, not that I looked if any exists. Richiez (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal opinion. Do you have any WP:RS to support your claim that it is a political statement, and lacks essential medical information? That sounds like WP:OR.

Wikipedia routinely refers to NICE guidance. NICE is a WP:MEDMOS secondary source. According to WP:MEDMOS, secondary sources are preferred to primary medical reports, because collecting primary reports in a Wikipedia entry would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. NICE is a notable organization, with its own Wikipedia entry.

Wikipedia routinely refers to the cost of expensive drugs, because the cost is often discussed in many WP:RS, including major medical journals like NEJM, which makes it a significant issue and meets all the standards of WP:NOTABLE.

"Please do not delete well-sourced material without discussing it first in Talk" means first you discuss it in Talk and then you delete it if there is consensus to delete it. Under WP:PRESERVE you should not delete well-sourced material unless there is a consensus to do so. If you disagree with it you can add WP:RS that you agree with, such as FDA documents or review articles. --Nbauman (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you easily get the missing information from the sources that you have provided? 2-3 sentences what exactly NICE did examine and what level of evidence they claim would make the paragraph much better. Did they study metastatic cancer only, or anything else? What groups and subgroups of patients? Were they using internal data? I notice there is not much in medline. It is the overgeneralization that makes it appear like a political statement.

Also wondering, is there some hype to use Faslodex over anastrazole that I have missed? Did not notice anything like this recently. Richiez (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to PubMed clinical queries systematic[sb] AND ("fulvestrant" [Supplementary Concept] OR "fulvestrant"[All Fields]) :

Fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Valachis A, Mauri D, Polyzos NP, Mavroudis D, Georgoulias V, Casazza G. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010 Mar;73(3):220-7. Epub 2009 Apr 14. Review. PMID:19369092 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19369092

Analysis of costs associated with administration of intravenous single-drug therapies in metastatic breast cancer in a U.S. population. Kruse GB, Amonkar MM, Smith G, Skonieczny DC, Stavrakas S. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(9):844-57. PMID:19006441 Free Article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19006441

Fulvestrant for systemic therapy of locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a systematic review. Flemming J, Madarnas Y, Franek JA. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 May;115(2):255-68. Epub 2008 Aug 6. Review. PMID:18683044 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18683044

--Nbauman (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK here's my 2p's worth. This (the issue of whether NICE info is 'political') is itself a political issue. Its also only really relevant in a UK setting - the UK NHS makes decisions on cost-effectiveness using calculations relevant to, and based on, data from the UK population. That said, it's highly relevant to any UK cancer patients coming to this page. I'm in favour of keeping this paragraph but will add a few edits to clarify things. It is unfortunate that the NICE website does not do such a good job of laying out their reasoning in a user-friendly way, but they are a rigorous, evidence-based organisation entirely suited to being a reputable source on these pages. HenryScow (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some evidence (such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15764600) that fulvestrant can actually act as an agonist for certain membrane bound estrogen receptors - what are the thoughts on including this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpzrz (talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biasuz - about this, please read and follow both WP:MEDRS with regard to sourcing and WP:MEDMOS with regard to article structure. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]